- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,835
- Reaction score
- 6,778
The comments on this are a bunch of patients talking about how their therapists are their BFFs who hug them and give them gifts.
The comments on this are a bunch of patients talking about how their therapists are their BFFs who hug them and give them gifts.
Many. But, also, because many of them just simply don't know anything about evidence-based psychological science and think anything PESI tells them "is evidence-based" is, indeed, "evidence-based."Tangentially related, but I often wonder how many therapists don't run certain modalities that really challenge their clients (e.g. PE) as they themselves want to be "liked" or be "friends" with their clients.
I always like it when people say that they "don't believe" in behaviorism. I want to ask if they would go to their job if they didn't get paid.Side note:
One of the most hilarious things I come across is when someone is railing against CBT and screaming about how much they hate it while also singing the praises of DBT, ACT, and other versions of cognitive-behavioral interventions.
The comments on this are a bunch of patients talking about how their therapists are their BFFs who hug them and give them gifts.
They aren't your patients if you're a seasoned therapist--they're your BFFs and treating them as anything less is neglect. /sI didn't know being seasoned meant to completely forget about boundaries and dress as if you don't respect the fact that your patients are paying to see a professional and not someone who hastily threw something on to go gran something at the supermarket.
Obviously, if you're still charging them money to see you, then you aren't a seasoned therapist.I didn't know being seasoned meant to completely forget about boundaries and dress as if you don't respect the fact that your patients are paying to see a professional and not someone who hastily threw something on to go gran something at the supermarket.
Well, it is where we get the word Lunatic from, so it's not a new idea...My parent was an ED nurse and has always said it's busier, and weirder, on full moons (half joking, half not). I worked on the (lowly) administrative side in the ED for a year or so before grad school; not sure I ever noticed or paid attention to the moon phase.
No clue if there's actually any data backing that up, although I'm sure it's been looked at.
The comments on this are a bunch of patients talking about how their therapists are their BFFs who hug them and give them gifts.
I'm immensely confused by the purpose of this video in the first place.
Tiktokification of the internet means oversharing thoughts and ideas that really should be kept to oneself 😔I'm immensely confused by the purpose of this video in the first place.
Some form of virtue signaling by terribly trained midlevels.
Omg there’s more and this one directly touches on dress.I didn't know being seasoned meant to completely forget about boundaries and dress as if you don't respect the fact that your patients are paying to see a professional and not someone who hastily threw something on to go gran something at the supermarket.
Omg there’s more and this one directly touches on dress.
Omg there’s more and this one directly touches on dress.
My take is that it is meant to be a bit humorous but that she really sees this as being a better therapist not bound by all of those silly professional expectations.It's really hard to know if they are joking or not, given what I've seen from some midlevels.
Omg there’s more and this one directly touches on dress.
I thought the video was a parody at first. Although I've noticed plenty of midlevels, and a few psychologists, who seem to equate, without understanding the nuances of, the basic tenets of empathy, bedside manner, unconditional positive regard, and attentiveness to being bubbly, friend-like, and non-confrontational at all times.I've noticed, especially on the reddit space, lots of "I'm not like the other therapists," which is proceeded by them stating they do some weird ass reiki crap or something else of that caliber. Relatedly, the youtube algorithm has me on lock (it's read me like a book for you old timers) and has been suggesting those old school 90's era "Psychic" vids (if you know you know). It was hysterical, but I died a bit inside when I realized it has similar energy to some of the stuff I've been reading on r/therapists.
It's presented as such a false dichotomy- either sloppily informal or impersonally referencing notes and checklists. I do think that's something newer (and some more experienced) clinicians struggle with- maintaining professional boundaries and procedural/scientific rigor, without coming across as overly formal and less- due to lack of a better term- human. You can talk to your clients like a normal empathetic and caring person without wearing your sweats and slumping in your chair. That's a skill that needs to be trained, with practice and feedback (and the people providing the feedback need to be trained to do that correctly, and often aren't).My take is that it is meant to be a bit humorous but that she really sees this as being a better therapist not bound by all of those silly professional expectations.
It's presented as such a false dichotomy- either sloppily informal or impersonally referencing notes and checklists. I do think that's something newer (and some more experienced) clinicians struggle with- maintaining professional boundaries and procedural/scientific rigor, without coming across as overly formal and less- due to lack of a better term- human. You can talk to your clients like a normal empathetic and caring person without wearing your sweats and slumping in your chair. That's a skill that needs to be trained, with practice and feedback (and the people providing the feedback need to be trained to do that correctly, and often aren't).
Agreed. It's also why I haven't always been on board with the MH push to refer to those we provide clinical services to as clients rather than patients (although I understand that in some settings, "client" may make more sense).I honestly can't imagine going into see a healthcare professional who presented and acted like that. It would immediately make me think that this person would not take my concerns seriously, or that they were just very poorly trained.
Coming from a family of nurses, I never understood why our field was hellbent on calling patients "clients." I'm training to be a healthcare provider, not an attorney.Agreed. It's also why I haven't always been on board with the MH push to refer to those we provide clinical services to as clients rather than patients (although I understand that in some settings, "client" may make more sense).
Coming from a family of nurses, I never understood why our field was hellbent on calling patients "clients." I'm training to be a healthcare provider, not an attorney.
I have always used patient and refused to use client even throughout my training.Agreed. It's also why I haven't always been on board with the MH push to refer to those we provide clinical services to as clients rather than patients (although I understand that in some settings, "client" may make more sense).
Come on everyone knows (all the midlevels running agencies and clinics) the correct term is "consumers."Coming from a family of nurses, I never understood why our field was hellbent on calling patients "clients." I'm training to be a healthcare provider, not an attorney.
I REALLY dislike superficial summaries of power dynamics with equally superficial and meaningless proposed solutions. It’s like saying doing sexual orientation change is ok of it’s a client because wow that removed the power dynamic so they’re a happily willing participant.Interestingly enough, this was a discussion/debate I distinctly recall engaging in at my school during, I believe an ethics class. A number of my classmates were in the camp of "client" and their rationale was that it reduces the stigmatic power-differential from provider to client. I was firmly in the camp of "patient" as these are people we treat not serve. Semantics aside, I do think it colors the lens in how that individual approaches care.
I really encourage anyone to really examine why the term "power" when referring to a power differential is inherently bad. Hint: it's a whitewashed term to make a certain failed economic philosophy more palatable once everyone realized how much of a failure it was but the academy has difficulty letting go of failed theories.I REALLY dislike superficial summaries of power dynamics with equally superficial and meaningless proposed solutions. It’s like saying doing sexual orientation change is ok of it’s a client because wow that removed the power dynamic so they’re a happily willing participant.
I don't know if this has been directly addressed, but as it's come up in my course work I've paid more attention towards this topic.
Anyways ... Is the soul reason the Dodo Bird effect exists to galvanize and attempt to justify clinicians practicing blatantly pseudoscientific methods? I've been reading more on Wampold's work and find his methodologies to be "perplexing" and subsequent findings to be some serious stretches.
I want to throw in the obvious caveat that I don't doubt common factors do effect treatment outcomes
It’s also clear (to me, at least) that the only way to support the Dodo Bird hypothesis is to ignore all the evidence that some treatments do have specific contextual efficacy over and above others. For example, ExRP for OCD, CBT-P for psychosis, CPT/PE/CBT-TF for PTSD…I don't know if this has been directly addressed, but as it's come up in my course work I've paid more attention towards this topic.
Anyways ... Is the sole reason the Dodo Bird effect exists to galvanize and attempt to justify clinicians practicing blatantly pseudoscientific methods? I've been reading more on Wampold's work and find his methodologies to be "perplexing" and subsequent findings to be some serious stretches.
I want to throw in the obvious caveat that I don't doubt common factors do effect treatment outcomes
It’s also clear (to me, at least) that the only way to support the Dodo Bird hypothesis is to ignore all the evidence that some treatments do have specific contextual efficacy over and above others. For example, ExRP for OCD, CBT-P for psychosis, CPT/PE/CBT-TF for PTSD…
The power differential is inherent; trying to make it go away just causes more friction and ruins the professional working relationship. There SHOULD be a power differential. The healthcare practitioner SHOULD serve in some expert capacity. An expert on the patient’s subjective experience? No, but certainly an expert in how to interpret, treat, and manage whatever the patient presents with.
That’s literally why they pay you…….
Besides, recognizing that power differential and the associated transference/countertransference is ****ing powerful when worked with properly.
Pleasantly surprised that my schizo posting is getting such positive and thoughtful responses. You love to see it. Ill put the tinfoil hat away now.I would argue that the power differential is not inherent, but agree that it should be. Part of the problem we currently have is that some early career folks and those just plain desperate for money will sell you anything to make a buck. In my private practice days, I remember being complimented on having no patient complaints or ethical issues. This was largely due to having two jobs and not being desperate for money. Being properly paid matters.
Is the sole reason the Dodo Bird effect exists to galvanize and attempt to justify clinicians practicing blatantly pseudoscientific methods? I've been reading more on Wampold's work and find his methodologies to be "perplexing" and subsequent findings to be some serious stretches.
Agree, I don't think Wampold himself intended to have is work interpreted as "anything goes." Shedler, on the other hand, seems to be much more motivated by an axe he wishes to grind...I don't think Wampold was intending to provide a empirical cover to chicanery in psychotherapy as much as he was trying to identify effective practices. He over-discussed his findings, for sure, and in doing so I think misses the trees through the forest. There is no doubt that common factors play some role in treatment outcomes. Shouting a patient is a great way for them to never return. But it misses the larger point that some treatments work for some conditions better than others.
Agree, I don't think Wampold himself intended to have is work interpreted as "anything goes." Shedler, on the other hand, seems to be much more motivated by an axe he wishes to grind...
Oh man, and people LOVE to link Shelder to prove that CBT doesn't work. It's like this "aha! gotcha!' thing
Likely correct, he rants a lot. Many years ago, I was a lowly practicum student in my first training expeirncee in a masters program; was at a small psychoanalytic clinic. The institute that ran the clinic wanted to mark an anniversary of their existence by having a "big" speaker present and then have a fancy reception to mark the occasion. They got Shedler and apparently regretted inviting him. His presentation was mostly him talking about why others in the field were wrong, talking about his own experiences, and promoting a new book. I think he also talked about how psychoanalysis wasn't that useful either, which as you can imagine didn't go over too well. He also appeared to not know or understand the difference between other treatment modalities. And sparing some details here, he was quite strange and a few of my female colleagues were quite uncomfortable with his presence.I have to imagine that something happened to Shedler to trigger his jihad against CBT. Maybe Ellis pissed in his cheerios or something. He's hard to take seriously. There are some fair criticisms in there, but some of his writing verges on unhinged ranting.
Likely correct, he rants a lot. Many years ago, I was a lowly practicum student in my first training expeirncee in a masters program; was at a small psychoanalytic clinic. The institute that ran the clinic wanted to mark an anniversary of their existence by having a "big" speaker present and then have a fancy reception to mark the occasion. They got Shedler and apparently regretted inviting him. His presentation was mostly him talking about why others in the field were wrong, talking about his own experiences, and promoting a new book. I think he also talked about how psychoanalysis wasn't that useful either, which as you can imagine didn't go over too well. He also appeared to not know or understand the difference between other treatment modalities. And sparing some details here, he was quite strange and a few of my female colleagues were quite uncomfortable with his presence.
Shedler, on the other hand, seems to be much more motivated by an axe he wishes to grind...
I'm unfamiliar. Does this person do research or just publish unhinged rants?
Depends on how you define "research."